Clark v. Baker et al

Filing 34

ORDERED that the # 30 Motion for clarification is GRANTED. The schedule set out in the Klingele order is rescinded. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have 30 days to respond to the motion to dismiss, and respondents shall, thereafter, have 20 days to reply. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

WILLIAM RONALD CLARK,
Petitioner,

10
11

Case No. 3:12-cv-00579-MMD-VPC
ORDER

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,

12

Respondents.

13
14

In this action on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

15

2254, respondents seek clarification as to the schedule for briefing on the recently filed

16

motion to dismiss (dkt no. 30). As required, the Court issued an order under Klingele v.

17

Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988) and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.

18

1998). That order indicated a shorter briefing schedule than that originally allowed by

19

the Court in its initial screening order. Cf. Dkt. No. 7. The original schedule shall remain.

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for clarification (dkt. no. 30) is

21

GRANTED. The schedule set out in the Klingele order is rescinded.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days to respond

23

to the motion to dismiss, and respondents shall, thereafter, have twenty (20) days to

24

reply.

25

DATED THIS 23rd day of May 2013.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE